It Never Hurts to Know Someone Gives a Crap

Sagan ideas haven't improved the world one bit.
Ideas don't operate on their own.
People need to understand and apply them.

Would help if you clearly defined what you would consider to be "improved the world".

My take is that the "World", as in human society(societies), is always in flux and contentions, hopefully working on improvement, but a long ways to go before anywhere near almost perfection acceptable to most.
 
Chicago
LA
San Fran
NYC
Baltimore
Minneapolis
St. Louis
Portland
Seattle

All ruined by Leftist mayors and governors. Those voters will be shamed in the history books.

Per rightwinger
Thing is, it's usually a slight majority of voters who did the damage in those cities and across our nation, hence the ones who should be shamed.

Considering how many who could vote but don't, it's possible had they voted they might have set a different path than what has resulted. Hence a case could be made that the citize3ns who fail to do their duty ~ vote, are even more to blame/shame.
 
I'm going to start with placing this here, partly as archve and also because it is something that should be taught in schools anyway. (And pending another thread where it could help.)

The Baloney Detection Kit​

Carl Sagan’s rules for critical thinking offer cognitive fortification against propaganda, pseudoscience, and general falsehood.​

I apply this daily to the claims about Climate alarmism and also the claims made about Donald Trump.

  1. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
 
People looked at the America that Reagan took over. An America that had lost its optimism and had a dim view of the future and see how Reagan improved it and brought us back

People will look at the America Trump took over. How divisive Trump has been, how he has destroyed our international reputation, the impact of his war in Iran and the shape of the Trump economy. They will see lasting damage
A reminder that it was a previous Democrat POTUS/Admin. that produced that 'lost optimism' & 'dim view of the future'. Also Reagan was subject at the time of much derision from the Left, ridicule, lambasted for offending our "friends and allies", and disparaged for the foreign wars/conflicts he got the USA involved with.

As usual, hindsight can be more generous and approving that the "present" of the past was.

Trump in many was is performing the same game plan as Reagan, only with slightly different opponents(targets)/objectives and improved tools.

The "destroyed international reputation" is with nations that have a more socialist structure and opposing ideals than the traditional ones of the USA. They also resent that Trump has ended the generous handouts and is expecting most of the world to pay their own way and carry their own load. No more "Let George(Washington DC) do it.

The "war in Iran" is still a process in the making towards a better peace, and solutions for an international threat that has been in the making for decades, and his continuing a heritage and agenda of past 1400 years is not something that could be fixed/aborted in a few weeks or a couple of months. Assuming one wants a more permanent solution rather than the usual quick, temporary fix.

The economy is based on a number of factors (often competing with each other) that are not under control of the Executive Branch of USA Federal Guv'mint. For example, reportedly the USA is pumping enough of our own petroleum to meet our nation's needs, so one would expect gas prices(etc.) should have been unaffected by the war's impact on international petroleum markets. But would seem that "Big Oil", who really sets the price at the gas station pump, has decided that the US Citizen will pay for the impact on the rest of the world petroleum market.

I doubt we will see "lasting damage" unless major players decide that's how They want things to be. Our Nation's history has shown us to be resilient and able to bounce back from worse past examples, so your pessimism is premature and out of place, IMO.
 
The "destroyed international reputation" is with nations that have a more socialist structure and opposing ideals than the traditional ones of the USA.
Canada, Greenland, Denmark, Mexico, England, France, Germany, Ukraine…
 
Seems like it was to me.


Uh? Sure? 16 yr old kids working 10 hr night shifts? Swing shifts? Where? The liquor store? Girls? Call BS on most of your stories about these “Angels“ (better than American kids eh? Yeah we get it). How old are they? 32? Going to Taxpayer funded alternative School?
Most states have child labor laws that would prevent teens working 10 hour shifts, especially at night.
Maybe if the girl was over 18 this could happen, but where (what employer), why, and what sort of work ?
 
Last edited:
7 days?! I figured it out in 7 minutes. Are you people here really this gullible?
1) It appears you haven't been here long enough nor sampled the breadth of posts and posters here to make such an inaccurate broad brush conclusion.
2) You have yet to present anything to establish you are other than a cynic and internet troll.
3) You might consider putting a temporary damper on your hubris.
 
Canada, Greenland, Denmark, Mexico, England, France, Germany, Ukraine…
Canada = socialist, irrelevant, depends on the US for defense.

Greenland = population of what 70k? Irrelevant

Denmark = tiny, homogeneous, irrelevant

Mexico = Narco state. Needs major overhaul.

England = Islamophied. Needs some serious soul searching. Trump is the least of their worries.

France = see England

Germany = see France

Ukraine = our weapons are keeping them in the fight
 
Ideas don't operate on their own.
People need to understand and apply them.
I have many ideas that would improve society. Here's one,

Bring back the death penalty, expand and expedite it, limit appeals. Longer sentences for all other crimes. Jail time for first time offenders, no probation.
 
Last edited:
Would help if you clearly defined what you would consider to be "improved the world".
If we could reduce any of our problems the world would be improved.

Building more storm/fire-resistant homes would help.

Maybe we could teach people how to be healthy.

Stop rewarding criminals and start punishing them.

Make people pay for the damage they do.

Impound the vehicles of drunk drivers.

Government needs to pass effective laws, and the courts need to enforce them.

Reduce permits for fast food places like McD's, BurgerKing, and Wendy's. Issue more permits for diner's, cafe's, lunch counters.
 
Last edited:
15th post
Canada = socialist, irrelevant, depends on the US for defense.

Greenland = population of what 70k? Irrelevant

Denmark = tiny, homogeneous, irrelevant

Mexico = Narco state. Needs major overhaul.

England = Islamophied. Needs some serious soul searching. Trump is the least of their worries.

France = see England

Germany = see France

Ukraine = our weapons are keeping them in the fight
Who the Fuk starts a fight with our closest ally CANADA?
Trump has alienated every US ally
 
Most states have child labor laws that would prevent teens working 10 hour shifts, especially at night.
Maybe if the girl was over 18 this could happen, but where (what employer), why, and what sort of work ?
It may be that you do not grasp the difference between how things are supposed to work and how they really work.
 
If we could reduce any of our problems the world would be improved.

Building more storm/fire-resistant homes would help.

Maybe we could teach people how to be healthy.

Stop rewarding criminals and start punishing them.

Make people pay for the damage they do.

Impound the vehicles of drunk drivers.

Government needs to pass effective laws, and the courts need to enforce them.

Reduce permits for fast food places like McD's, BurgerKing, and Wendy's. Issue more permits for diner's, cafe's, lunch counters.
Some of the above are interesting, might work.
A few I'll disagree on.
USA is only one nation and "our problems" pale in comparison to those of the many other nations on this planet. Those many other nations with their many other problems are what need to be reduced to improve civilization. USA has been a major positive to the world for over a century now.
 
Last edited:
Who the Fuk starts a fight with our closest ally CANADA?
Trump has alienated every US ally
What fight do you speak of?


Copilot Search Branding


Like
Dislike

U.S. Presidents and the Idea of Adding Canada​

U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed a desire to annex Canada and make it the 51st U.S. state, but he has also said the idea is “highly unlikely” and that he does not rule out using force to achieve it POLITICO.

Trump has made these comments publicly on multiple occasions, including on Fox News, NBC’s Meet the Press, and Truth Social, where he has framed the idea as a way to eliminate tariffs and integrate Canada more closely with the U.S. economy TIME+1. In May 2025, he offered Canada a deal: join the U.S. “Golden Dome” missile defense system for free if it becomes a state, or pay $61 billion to join as a separate nation Newsweek.

However, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has been unequivocal: “It will never happen” TIME+1. He and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have both stressed that Canada is an independent, sovereign nation and will remain so. Carney has also said Trump “admires Canada” but is focused on trade, defense, and NATO commitments rather than annexation TIME.

While Trump has “always talked about” the idea and has made it a political talking point, there is no credible evidence that any U.S. president has seriously pursued or implemented annexation of Canada. The concept remains a rhetorical and political stance, not a policy in action.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom